Saturday, July 30, 2011

Taking the five loaves and
the two fish, and looking up to heaven, he said the blessing, broke the loaves,
and gave them to the disciples, who in turn gave them to the crowds. They all
ate and were satisfied.

It
is well known how the modernist and rationalist interpreters of Sacred
Scripture will attempt to twist the multiplication of the loaves (indeed, we
should say “multiplications”, since Jesus did this more than once) from a miracle
into an instance of sharing.

“It
wasn’t a miracle,” they tell us. “Or, rather, the miracle was that our Lord got
the people to share!” Now, I don’t intend here to point out that such “scholars”
have little understanding of the Gospels – how the event is clearly related as
a miracle, how the crowds (according to St.John) wanted to make Jesus a political King on account of the fact that
he could solve all their material problems with his power, how our Savior
himself reminds the Apostles that he had fed the multitudes with only some
loaves and a few fish (remember, he was with them on the boat and told them to
beware of the leaven of the Pharisees).

I
could do all this, many have done so before – it is the very necessary project
of apologetics (the first phase of theology). However, I wish to consider the
multiplication according to the higher science of theology proper: What would
it mean if this were only a case of sharing? And, What did Christ tell us when
he worked this great miracle?

Friday, July 29, 2011

And the Lord answering,
said to her: Martha, Martha, thou art careful, and art troubled about many
things: But one thing is necessary. Mary hath chosen the best part, which shall
not be taken away from her.
(Luke 10:41-42)

To be clear: We do not intend to "defend St. Martha" against the Lord, but rather to defend her from the popular (and sentimental) caricatures with which the modern world has obscured the true meaning of Christ's words. Today,
it has become popular to speak of the importance of following Mary’s example in
this dispute between the two sisters from Bethany. Certainly, Mary did chose
the best part – which is the life of prayer. Still, we must recall that most of
us (i.e. most of those reading this blog and also all the contributors) are
called to the active life in the world – we are called to the life of work,
which is symbolized by St. Martha.

Thursday, July 28, 2011

Christ's hand is raised in blessing at the multiplication of the loaves

18th Sunday in
Ordinary Time, Matthew 14:13-21

Taking the five loaves and
the two fish, and looking up to heaven, he said the blessing, broke the loaves,
and gave them to the disciples.

What
the priest used to say at Mass: “The day before he suffered, he took bread in
his sacred hands, and looking up to heaven, to you, his almighty Father, he gave you thanks and praise. He broke the bread, gave it to
his disciples, and said; TAKE THIS …”

What
the priest will say at Mass: “On the day before he was to suffer, he took bread
into his holy and venerable hands, and with eyes raised to heaven to you, O
God, his almighty Father, giving you thanks, he said the blessing, broke the bread and gave it to his disciples,
saying: TAKE THIS …”

The
Institution Narrative of Eucharistic Prayer I (above) is quite clearly modeled on
the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves. As St. Thomas Aquinas notes
(together with many others), the Gospels do not relate that Christ looked up to
heaven at the Last Supper, but we may presume this action since it was
prefigured at the multiplication of loaves and has been maintained in the
earliest tradition of the Church.

What
is particularly encouraging about the new English translation of the Roman
Missal is the inclusion of the language of blessing in the Institution
Narrative. While before – in Eucharistic Prayers I and III – the Latin word benedixit was translated as “He gave you
[…] praise” [completely confusing the two distinct actions of giving thanks (tibi gratias agens) and blessing (benedixit) by supplying the word “praise”];
the new translation will happily include the notion of blessing – “he said the
blessing”.

What
is more, Eucharistic Prayer IV will be modified from “he took bread, said the blessing, broke the bread, and
gave it to his disciples” to “he took bread, blessed and broke it,
and gave it to his disciples” – which is much more faithful to the Latin benedixit and to the biblical
inspiration of the liturgical text. It will now be very clear that the blessing
is directed toward the bread itself, which is about to be consecrated.

This
is what we should like to point out in our current article: The liturgical language
of the Mass must be rooted in the biblical language of the Gospels (and, as
applicable, of the whole Bible). A consideration of Christ’s blessing of the
bread just before the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves and fish will
serve to explain why the new translation of the Institution Narrative is far
more biblical than that which has been used in the English-speaking world since
the 1970s.

How
sad it is that the old (i.e. the current) English translation hid this act of
blessing for so many years. Starting in Advent 2012, a wonderful thing will
occur: The priest will once again be permitted to bless the bread at Mass!

Wednesday, July 27, 2011

A homily from last Sunday, delivered by Father Ryan Erlenbush at Sacred Heart Catholic Church in Miles City, MT. How we find the pearl in the ordinary circumstances of our daily life: Through attendance at Mass every Sunday, through gracious acceptance of children within marriage (i.e. using Natural Family Planning and not contraception), and through being generous to the poor.

Fr.
Erlenbush is a Catholic priest of the Diocese of Great Falls – Billings in Montana,
USA. He was ordained on 23 June 2009. Completing his seminary studies at the
North American College in Rome, he received an STB from the Pontifical Gregorian
University and both an MA and an STL from the Pontifical University of St.
Thomas Aquinas (Angelicum), focusing
on dogmatic theology.

Fr.
Erlenbush had previously written articles under the pseudonym Reginaldus, referring
to two heroic Dominican priests: Reginald of Piperno who was the close friend and
confessor of St. Thomas Aquinas, as well as Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange who is
surely the greatest Thomist of our day.

Tuesday, July 26, 2011

July 26th, Feast
of Sts. Joachim and Anne, parents of the Blessed Virgin Mary

As
we look at the two genealogies of Christ given in the Scriptures (Matthew 1:1ff
and Luke 3:23), we might wonder why it is that St. Joachim is not mentioned as
an ancestor of Jesus. It is no surprise that St. Anne would not be mentioned
(since few women are), but we ought to be a bit alarmed at the lack of St.
Joachim – since, he is the closest male blood-relative of our Savior.

Some
– thinking themselves wise – may reply too quickly: “Well, of course Joachim
isn’t mentioned! The genealogies are traced not through Mary, but through
Joseph. Hence, since Joachim is Jesus’ ancestor through Mary, it is obvious
that he wouldn’t be listed in the genealogy through Joseph!” Such persons are
quite ignorant of the great diversity of Catholic opinion on this question.

In
fact, many of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church – as well as the best of
the biblical scholars (we refer especially to Fr. Cornelius a’ Lapide) – have maintained
that the genealogy given in Luke is the natural genealogy through Mary, while
that in Matthew is the legal (and regal) genealogy through Joseph.

“How
can this be?,” some will cry, “The Bible clearly states that the genealogies
are both through Joseph – first as ‘son of Jacob’ (in Matthew), then as ‘son of
Heli’ (in Luke).” Pointing our readers to our
previous article on Mary’s genealogy, we turn now to a careful study of
where Joachim lies hidden in the text of St. Luke’s Gospel.

Monday, July 25, 2011

“St.
James the Apostle, brother of blessed John the Evangelist, who was beheaded by
Herod Agrippa about the time of the Paschal Feast, being the first of the
Apostles to receive the crown of martyrdom. His sacred bones were translated on
this day from Jerusalem to Spain, and buried in the furthest parts of that
country, in Galicia, and are piously venerated with great honour by the people
of that country, and by the mighty concourse of Christians who go thither to
perform their religious duties and vows.” (from the Roman Martyrology)

Devout
Catholics often feel a certain anxiety when a feast of one of the St. James-es occurs. We often wonder: Which James is this again? And what did that James do?
And how many Jameses are there anyways?

There
are, in fact, as many as five different Jameses presented in the Scripture – and
to these, there are also many extra-canonical traditions regarding the Jameses.
In this little article, we will not so much attempt to give all the scriptural and
patristic proofs of the general tradition, but will instead strive to put
forward (clearly and concisely) the scriptural and traditional accounts about
the different Jameses.

Friday, July 22, 2011

The
majority of modern biblical “scholars” – including Catholics – maintain that
Mary Magdalene, Mary of Bethany (the sister of Lazarus and Martha), and the
sinful woman (of Luke 7) are three distinct women. On the other hand, there is
some popular devotion which connects Mary Magdalene at least with the sinful
woman, if not with Mary of Bethany. Finally, there is a modern opinion that
Mary Magdalene is the adulterous woman of John 8 [in my study of the Fathers
and Doctors, I have yet to find any support for this final claim].

It
may be somewhat surprising, therefore, to realize that the Western Catholic
tradition has held – from at least the 5th century up to the early
1900s – that Mary Magdalene, Mary of Bethany, and the sinful woman (of Luke 7,
not the adulteress of John 8) are one and the same person. Thus, the ancient
and nearly unanimous tradition of the Latin Church is completely ignored by the
modern Catholic “scholars”.

Indeed,
if Mary Magdalene is not also Mary of Bethany, then we come to the awkward
conclusion that Mary of Bethany is not venerated in the Roman Catholic Church –
since there is no feast of “St. Mary of Bethany”, nor does the Latin Rite recognize
any saint of that description apart from St. Mary Magdalene. Moreover, we point
out that the feast of St. Martha of Bethany falls on the octave day of the
feast of St. Mary Magdalene – lending additional support to the Church’s
tradition.

While
there is a tradition in the East which considers Mary Magdalene, Mary of
Bethany, and the sinful woman to be either two or even three women – and there
is certainly some ground for such a claim – we will here defend the Latin
consensus that these three are indeed only one single woman: The penitent, the
sister of Lazarus and Martha, the Magdalen.

Can. 917 – He who has already received the most holy Eucharist, is able to receive it again on the same day only within a eucharistic celebration in which he participates, without prejudice to the provision of can. 921, § 2.

Catholics are often told that they can receive Holy Communion twice in a day without qualification. It seems to be a “right” to receive Holy Communion twice in one day, no matter what the circumstances may be. Looking into the Church’s law on this question reveals something altogether different however. First, the Code of Canon Law is basing Can. 917 on a document from the then Sacred Congregation for the Discipline of the Sacraments entitled Immensae caritatis, which in English begins “The witness of immeasurable charity (immensae caritatis) which Christ the Lord left to his Church, his bride…” (Acta Apostolica Sedis, 65 [1973] 267 – 268) This document discusses highly important matters of Church discipline surrounding so august a Sacrament; Matters such as the distribution of Holy Communion by extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, a wider faculty – not unrestricted and limitless – for the reception of Holy Communion twice in one day, the mitigation of the Eucharistic fast for the infirm and the elderly and finally, the piety and reverence toward the Most Blessed Sacrament when the faithful receive the Host in the hand. Weighty matters and unfortunately I am not able to treat of them all. However, we now turn to the question of receiving twice in one day and will leave the rest for another day.

In
the 1800’s, led primarily by protestant theologians, the science of biblical
theology first began. This science – which is completely different from the “proof-texting”
of the Medieval scholastics and from the allegorizing of the early Fathers –
approached the Bible in a whole new way: Emphasizing especially the importance
of the original languages and also giving greater prominence to the human
authors of the biblical books. For the first time, the Bible was understood in
the historical context in which it was originally written.

Now,
as with any completely new and original science, it is to be expected that
biblical scholarship would struggle for a few years – jumping from one theory
to another – but, soon enough, a real “golden age” dawned in the 1900’s.
Unfortunately, because of the fears of the Church authorities, Catholic
scholars were forbidden from practicing this new science – after all, Catholics
were only allowed to read the Bible in Latin (and lay Catholics were discouraged
from reading it at all). However, all this changed in 1943 when Pope Pius XII
issued the Encyclical letter Divino
Afflante Spiritu. And so, the Golden Age of Catholic biblical scholarship
had begun.

So
goes the common myth. The truth could hardly be more different from this fable. It is the above yarn which (in this little article) we hope to begin to
untangle.

Wednesday, July 20, 2011

As the precious pearl lies hid within the humble shell,so too the divinity of Christ is veiled by his humanity

17th Sunday in
Ordinary Time, Matthew 13:44-52

The kingdom of heaven is
like a merchant searching for fine pearls. When he finds a pearl of great
price, he goes and sells all that he has and buys it.

In
the Gospel for this Sunday, our Savior begins with two parables: That of the
treasure hidden in the field and that of the pearl of great price. “In these
two parables Jesus shows the supreme value of the Kingdom of heaven, and the
attitude people need if they are to attain it. The parables are very alike, but
it is interesting to note the differences: the treasure means abundance of
gifts; the pearl indicates the beauty of the Kingdom. The treasure is something
stumbled upon; the pearl, the result of a lengthy search; but in both instances
the finder is filled with joy.” (from the Navarre Bible Commentary)

As the Church has meditated on the “Parables
of the Kingdom” – that is, the parables found in Matthew 13:1-52 (those of the
sower, of the weeds, of the mustard seed, of the leaven, of the hidden
treasure, of the pearl of great price, and of the net which caught many fish) –
she has come to understand these to reveal not only the nature of the Kingdom
and of the Church, but also of the person of Jesus. Our Savior is himself the
Kingdom of heaven, just as the Church is his mystical body.

Monday, July 18, 2011

Nearly
all priests, and even the majority of moderately catechized lay persons, know
that the sacrament of Anointing of the Sick cannot be given to young children
who have not yet acquired the use of reason. Such is the clear teaching of the
Church: “The anointing of the sick can be administered to any member of the
faithful who, having reached the use of
reason, begins to be in danger of death by reason of illness or old age.”
(Canon 1004.1)

In
previous articles, we have discussed whether Anointing can be given before surgery and also how sick one must be in order to receive Anointing of the Sick, we now offer a final article on why young children who have not yet
reached the use of reason cannot receive this sacrament. Indeed, although most
priests know this fact, it is likely that many do not understand why this is
the case. In my own experience of seminary formation, I was shocked to discover
that (at what is supposed to be a conservative and academically rigorous seminary)
the priests on faculty entrusted with teaching the seminarians about Anointing of the Sick could not explain why this sacrament is
not given to young children.

We
will say this: If a priest cannot explain why Anointing of the Sick is not
given to children who lack the use of reason, he has not yet come to even a
most rudimentary understanding of the sacrament – such a priest really knows
nothing at all about Anointing of the Sick. Conversely, a careful consideration
of this question will lead us to the very heart of the sacrament of Anointing.

Saturday, July 16, 2011

The kingdom of heaven is
like a mustard seed that a person took and sowed in a field.

The
parable of the mustard seed follows after two other seed-based parables which
emphasize the tribulations which the Gospel must endure. The first, which was
read by the Church last Sunday, is of the sower who went forth to sow – of the
seed which he scattered, three parts were lost (for they fell upon the path,
the rocky earth, and among thorns), and only one part was preserved (for it
alone fell upon the good soil).

Our
Lord then proceeds with another parable which emphasizes an additional
tribulation. In the parable of the weeds and the wheat, we learn that even among
the seed placed in good soil, the enemy will come and sow weeds which will
threaten the wheat and attempt to stifle the harvest.

Hence,
when he comes to the third parable, that of the mustard seed, Fr. Cornelius a’
Lapide begins his commentary on this passage with the following remark: “This
is Christ’s third parable, the occasion and cause of which St. Chrysostom gives
as follows: ‘Because the Lord had said that of the seed three parts perish, and
one is preserved, and again of that which is preserved, there is great loss on account
of the tares which are sown above it, lest people should say, who then and how
many will believe? He removes this fear by the parable of the grain of mustard
seed, and therefore it is said, Another
parable put He forth unto them, the kingdom of Heaven is like unto a grain of
mustard seed, et c.’”

As
the Fathers and Doctors interpret this passage, they see Christ himself, the
Church, and even St. Lawrence the deacon represented in the tiny seed which
grows to become a great plant.

Friday, July 15, 2011

On
3 May 2010, Pope Benedict XVI spoke of the legacy of St. Bonaventure at his
customary Wednesday Audience (this was the first of three audiences which would
be dedicated to the Seraphic Doctor). The Holy Father recalled the memory of
the disciple of St. Francis with great tenderness: “Today I would like to talk
about St Bonaventure of Bagnoregio. I confide to you that in broaching this
subject I feel a certain nostalgia, for I am thinking back to my research as a
young scholar on this author who was particularly dear to me. My knowledge of
him had quite an impact on my formation.”
(See the whole text here)

Together
with St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Bonaventure has come to symbolize the Scholastic
period of theology. Sadly, Scholasticism has come under no small amount of
ridicule in recent days. Some Catholic theologians have gone so far as to claim
that the Church has moved past the “old theology” of the medieval schools and
has adopted a “new theology” for the present day. The proponents of this “new
theology” have the intention of “razing the bastions” – that is, destroying (rather,
dismissing) the traditional distinctions developed by the Scholastic doctors.

Certainly,
any true Bonaventurian (as well as any true Thomist; indeed, any true Catholic)
would abhor such a notion. Below, we reproduce selections from the Bull Triumphantis
Hierusalem (from 1588) of Pope Sixtus V, in which St. Bonaventure is officially
elevated as a Doctor of the Church. In his praise of the Seraphic Doctor, Pope
Sixtux V also promotes the Scholastic theology which St. Bonaventure so well
personified.

[The
text below is entirely from Pope Sixtus V. We apologize for the rather
difficult wording which was common to that age. We have tried to bring attention
to certain points with our emphases.]

Thursday, July 14, 2011

As
we celebrate today the memory of Blessed Kateri Takakwitha, we call to mind the
importance of the missionary zeal in the life of the Church.

Bl.
Kateri was born to a Catholic mother and a pagan father, but lost her parents
to small pox at a young age – she herself was badly scarred by the disease.
Living then with her uncle, who was not a Christian, she nevertheless
maintained an interest in the Church and Christ Jesus.

When
she was twenty years of age, she was baptized by Fr. Jacques de Lamberville, a
Jesuit missionary priest. Kateri entered the Church on Easter, 18 April 1676.

It
is well known how Bl. Kateri mortified herself and grew in the spiritual life.
Moreover, she suffered much persecution and ridicule from her clan, who did not
understand her new faith. Ultimately she was forced to abandon her community
and flee to a Christian community of Natives in Kahnawake, Quebec. In 1679,
Kateri took of vow of chastity, consecrating herself as a virgin. She died on
17 April 1680, at the age of twenty four.

What
is particularly striking about her story is the simple fact (which is more than
a mere statement of history) that, if a Catholic priest had not brought the
faith to her people, Kateri would not be a blessed. Moreover, if a protestant
missionary had been the one to baptize Kateri, she would not be a blessed and
we would not be celebrating her feast today.

The
salvation of the “Lily of the Mohawks” really did depend upon the missionary
work of the Catholic priest, Fr. Jacque de Lamberville. Kateri’s eternal
salvation came through the real historical work of the Church, who spread the
Gospel among the pagan natives of the Americas, baptizing them in the Name and
instructing them in the one true Faith.

How
great must be our zeal for Evangelization, it is a matter of eternal life and
eternal death!

Wednesday, July 13, 2011

There
has been, quite happily, a realization in recent years that the Anointing of
the Sick (i.e. Extreme Unction) is a sacrament of the “sick” and not of the “dying”.
Last
week, we recognized that this sacrament (because it is not for the “dying”)
is not appropriate for those who are in serious and even immediate danger of
death but are not sick – e.g. for persons about to enter war, those about to be
executed, and also those about to undergo “serious” surgery who yet have no
serious illness.

What
became clear in the comment box of the previous article is that there is no
little confusion about what the Church means by “serious sickness” and “the
sick”. How sick does one have to be before receiving Anointing? In what
circumstances does old age call for the sacrament of Anointing? In other words:
How sick is “sick”?

Finally,
we must also consider how often the sacrament of Anointing should be repeated.

Monday, July 11, 2011

As
the Church today celebrates the feast of St. Benedict (according to the
Ordinary Form), we consider the common life which the Father of Western Monasticism
both defined and defended. In our own day (as I suppose in any period of
history), there is a great impulse toward individualism and independence – and these
tendencies often creep into our religious sensibilities through hidden and
unseen cracks.

St.
Benedict defended the institution of common monastic life and recommended this
before the solitary life of the hermit. Certainly, the life of the hermit is
more perfect than that of the monk, but St. Benedict warns that the hermit’s
life is also more dangerous and therefore should only be entered after many
years of living the common life of the monastery.

Far
too often, both religious and priests separate pre-maturely from the common
life of their community in order to take up a solitary life independent from
the monastery or (as the case may have it) from the common life of the diocesan
clergy. This tendency toward separatism is very dangerous, as it puts the
vocation of the priest or religious in grave jeopardy – indeed, it can happen
that the individual (now outside his community and living independently and
according to his own whims) will become so lost as to end up renouncing his
vocation and pursuing instead his own plans rather than the will of God which
is communicated through his superiors.
[Does this story sound familiar to anyone?]

A
consideration of the opening chapter of Holy Rule of St. Benedict will serve to
correct this errant tendency.

Friday, July 8, 2011

A sower went out to sow.
[…] Some seed fell on rich soil, and produced fruit, a hundred or sixty or
thirtyfold.

The
parable of the sower describes the manner in which the grace of God is freely
bestowed upon the earth and bears much fruit in the hearts of those who
believe. The liberality and the generosity with which the Lord pours forth his
Word upon the earth – giving grace not merely to those who are well-disposed
(i.e. the good soil), but even to the wicked (i.e. the poor soil) – witnesses
to the infinite riches of the Divine Mercy.

Still,
we must consider how it comes about that some soil is well prepared while other
soil is poor. If it is God who sows the seed of grace, who prepares and
disposes the soil of the human soul to receive that grace?

In
responding to this question, St. Thomas Aquinas’ own position grew and
developed – in this theological question, as in so many others, the Common
Doctor rises above all his contemporaries and soars ahead as the greatest
Master. The thought of the Angelic Doctor has become a light to the whole
Church. We shall here consider (briefly, and in simple terms) the key points of
the debate and the change in St. Thomas’ thought which led to a significant
development in Catholic theology generally.

Can
man prepare or dispose himself to receive the first gift of grace?

Wednesday, July 6, 2011

Is any man sick among you?
Let him bring in the priests of the church, and let them pray over him,
anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith shall
save the sick man. (James
5:14-15)

“The Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick is
given to those who are seriously ill.” (Paul VI, Apostolic Constitution Sacram Unctione Infirmorum, 30 Nov 1972)

“It
is fitting to receive the Anointing of the Sick just prior to a serious
operation.” (CCC 1515)

Happily,
the sacrament of Extreme Unction is no longer (in the popular thought of the faithful)
relegated solely to the last moments of life, but is celebrated much more conveniently
when the sickness first begins to seriously threaten life. Most unhappily, a
widespread confusion has occurred as to the whether (and, as the case may have
it, why) the sacrament of Anointing is to be given before serious surgery.

Many
of the Christian faithful (indeed, even many of the priests) are of
the mistaken opinion that serious life-threatening surgery is, in itself, a
cause for the administration of the sacrament of Anointing. This confusion
could be perpetuated by the brief words of the Catechism of the Catholic Church
(as reproduced above), but can be easily corrected if we consider the nature of
the sacrament.

As
we shall see, serious (and even life-threatening) surgery is not a cause for
the reception of Anointing of the Sick. Likewise, other foreseen life-threatening
events (such as deployment for military service or capital punishment) do not
render a person fit to be a recipient of this sacrament.

Monday, July 4, 2011

The
United States of America is at a crossroads: Will she defend the natural
institution of marriage or will she doom herself to societal decline? With all
the debate about same-sex “marriage” and the recent legislation in New York,
much ink (or, rather, megabytes of online data) has been spent on the issue. On
point that seems to have gone unnoticed – or, at least, has not been stressed
enough – is that the homosexual activists have failed to recognize that human
beings are animals.

The
argument for same-sex “marriage” recognizes (at least theoretically) the love
of the spouses, the fidelity and permanence of the marriage bond, and the
emotional and psychological significance of marital union, but it completely
fails to recognize the physical and animal aspect of marriage – namely, the
preservation and propagation of the human species. The same-sex “marriage”
advocates treat of human beings as though we were angels, pure spirits. They completely
ignore the physical nature of man.

This
is what is most surprising about the promoters of the homosexual sub-culture:
For materialistic hedonists, they are far too spiritual.

Saturday, July 2, 2011

Take my yoke upon you and
learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart.

Fr.
Cornelius a’ Lapide cites the words of St. Augustine on this verse: “Take my yoke upon you, and learn of Me,
not to frame a world, not to create all things, visible and invisible, not to
do miracles in the world and to raise the dead; but that I am meek and lowly in
heart. Dost thou wish to be great, begin from the least. Thou art thinking of
constructing a mighty fabric of loftiness, think first of the foundation of
humility. And as great as each one wishes to build up his edifice, the greater
the building, so much the more deeply let him dig his foundation.”

In
following Christ our Savior, we are to imitate not so much his power and his
glory, but rather his meekness and humility. But how to be humble? Indeed, it
is much easier to be humble in word than humble of heart. In this regard, we
turn to the writings of St. Benedict of Nursia who, in the seventh chapter of
his Rule, establishes the twelve degrees of humility. Finally, we will reproduce St. Thomas Aquinas' defense of the twelve degrees, recalling that the Angelic
Doctor himself learned humility through his schooling under the Holy Rule as a boy.

[what follows is taken entirely from the Rule of St. Benedict and from the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, respectively]

Friday, July 1, 2011

O Sacred Heart of Jesus,
from whose fullness we have all received. Have mercy on us!

Many
tend to presume presume that the Church’s doctrinal teaching on the perfection
of Christ’s humanity carries with it the danger of removing our Lord too far
from the natural experience common to (fallen) humanity. “Be careful,” they
warn us, “lest you so elevate the Savior that he is no longer really human.” (They
seem to think that a man is not human unless he suffers from the effects of
sin)

In
this regard, it is not uncommon for such persons to claim that the traditional
teaching on our Savior’s knowledge – including, especially, that the Lord
enjoyed not only the natural human (acquired) mode of knowledge, but also the
beatific knowledge of the saints (i.e. the intimate vision of and communion with
God) and also the infused knowledge of all the truths which the human mind is
capable of knowing (i.e. the knowledge of all created reality, past, present
and future) – to be harmful to the devotional life of the Christian: “How,”
they question, “can we relate to the Lord, if he did not experience ignorance,
doubt, and confusion?” And again, they are perplexed when they come to certain
passages of the Scriptures which seem to indicate a degree of positive
ignorance in the Savior: “Was not our Lord ignorant,” they say, “of the time of
the Second Coming?” Or, “Did not the Christ feel abandoned by his Father when
he suffered on the Cross?”

Contrary
to the grumblings of such persons, the Church has always affirmed the
perfections of Christ’s sacred humanity (and especially of his knowledge) as
essential to his role as our Savior. And this is why the Catholic Church
affirms (in her ordinary Magisterium) that our Lord knew and knows all things
even as man: If Jesus saved us through his humanity, then it is necessary that
this humanity be perfect.

The
devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus recognized the essential role of the
humanity of the Lord as the instrument of our salvation, united to his
divinity. The fullness of Christ’s
Sacred Heart is the storehouse of all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.